>I'm new to the forum and have read with interest the heated debate sparked by Phil's post. Whilst not being homophobic or having any issues with whether a gay couple could raise a child in a loving family environment, the point which seem to have been missed is that the definition of 'marriage' is essentailly a union between a male and a female. I haven't been able to find one which says otherwise. Why should the ceremony of 'marriage' therefore be extended to couples who will never be able to fit this definition? Does it really make a difference to the level of commitment betwen partners in a gay relationship whether they have a title of 'married' associated with that partnership? I wouldn't have thought so! What about a 'committed union' ceremony, or something similar that could imply that a same-sex relationship is committing to a life-log partnership of deeper love and commitment?

>Now having the same legal rights as a 'married' couple (male/female) is a different issue altogether and on that I feel needs to be addressed so that there is no discrimation between heterosexual and same sex couples. The two issues should not be confused, which is what I think is the real issue...not of allowing same-sex marriages to be legalised, but in fact allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as 'married' heterosexual couples. Please fee free to comment if I've missed something here or is this really the crux of the matter (pardon the climbing pun)?

I actually have a whole bunch of problems with marriage - I don't need the state or the church to certify my relationship and I don't want to be part of an institution that until recently made women the property of husbands, the children the property of fathers, rape was not recognised because somehow women signed over all rights of consent to specific incidents upon marriage, women had to leave work upon marriage, having children outside of marriage was unmentionable etc etc. Yes, I am aware that all those things have been changed in law in Australia, but I still don't like the history. But, these changes all show that changes can occur, and this includes in the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Many other legal terms have been changed to be non gender specific. Why are people holding onto this one?

The other issue however, is that marriage is still seen to be the highest form of commitment to another in our society. Quite why I'm not sure as people jump in and out of marriage almost as often as beds in modern society, but it is. My not-mother-in-law still asks when Anthony and I are getting married, as if it somehow makes a difference. De facto relationships, civil unions, committment parties, handfasting and the like are not generally recognised as equally valid expressions of relational commitment. And some gay people are also religious, thus it is meaningful for them in those terms to get married as well. By not having gay marriage, we are being discriminatory and denying these people the right to society and most religions preferred expression of committment. I think you'll find the legal terms are different for de facto and married as well.

Moderators own the server so they can obviously do as they please, this is not a democracy right? Sure, they have a legal responsibility to remove some types of material but other than that....

I don't think we should lock out threads because we find them offensive or disagree with them, or if the majority finds them offensive. There are plenty of threads that I don't agree with and there are plenty of threads that don't add value to a climbing discussion either.

If it turns out that chockstone becomes a bigoted little place, so be it.

I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between same sex partners marrying and hetro- couples divorcing (remember the death till you part bit in front of God himself). They both impinge on the supposedly holy institution of marriage. So if hetro's can divorce, two men or women in love can marry. or is it only the right of hetro couples to divorce and disgrace the wonderful institution of marriage?

I think the locking was good as it closes off that thread with all the abuse, making it clear that kind of thing is not tolerated. Hopefully people can keep it civil in this thread, and it won't be locked.

The host of the board does have rules.
I don't know if this is privately hosted or just another using a simple template on one of the many board hosters.?is that a word?

But if it is, then there are rules of operation to be followed.
Most moderators let the board run quite freely and usually well outside of the recommendations.
It is a lot of work to reign in an out of control thread, so it is simply much easier to nip it in the bud.
This bud was missed for a couple of days and look at the ruckus it has caused.
To let it carry on would just be too much work for a moderator to do instead of going climbing.

On 24/08/2010 rightarmbad wrote:>The host of the board does have rules.>I don't know if this is privately hosted or just another using a simple>template on one of the many board hosters.?is that a word?

Regarding the post ... it IS discriminatory and therefore you need to provide a good reason to keep it that way, not the other way around. How would changing it actually impact people who are already married? If you seriously think it doesn't make any difference to restrict who can get married, how would you like it if it was restricted to Christians? To argue that it makes no difference is to be wilfully blind.
This is what the recent case in California came down to - the deciding judge, who previously was viewed as conservative, could not find any evidence of adverse impact to people who are currently married or to the wider community, so he threw out the law (which was passed by 52% of Californian voters in a referendum). Now he is being attacked by the conservatives as a traitor.
The same standard applies to things like womens-only fitness clubs. There is a demonstrable benefit in that discrimination and therefore it is permitted.

Interesting point Gordoste, the most compelling point I've read actually. If you take an evidence based approach it would seem there isn't much to stand on, but on the values side of things I still don't agree.

On 24/08/2010 Sabu wrote:>Interesting point Gordoste, the most compelling point I've read actually.> If you take an evidence based approach it would seem there isn't much>to stand on, but on the values side of things I still don't agree.>

What values side of things? That you value heterosexual relationships more than homosexual ones? I don't get it.

A quick search ("same sex parents and children and review") of PubMed spat out a small number of papers in peer-review journals including the following. The findings may ease the concerns expressed by Phil Box in the locked thread.

Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005;17:309-12
Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development.
Greenfeld DA. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Same sex couples are steadily becoming more open about their relationships. One consequence of this growing openness is that more couples of the same sex are choosing to have children and infertility treatment centers are increasingly faced with requests for assistance in creating these families. The aim of this review is to address new trends in reproduction in same sex couples, to consider the quality of parenting in lesbian mother and gay father households, and to review the literature on the development of children raised by same sex couples.
RECENT FINDINGS: The current literature on these families is limited by small sample sizes and a predominance of studies of lesbian mothers and their children, with few studies of gay fathers and their children. A recent study of adolescents living with same sex parents recruited from a large national sample supports the notion that adolescents raised by same sex couples are doing well psychologically and are not more likely to be homosexual. The authors concluded that it was the quality of parenting, not parental sexual orientation that accounted for developmental differences.
SUMMARY: The literature supports the notion that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not more likely to become homosexual and are not measurably different from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of personality development, psychological development, and gender identity. Larger longitudinal studies of same sex parents, particularly gay men, are needed, including those who choose to become parents through the use of assisted reproduction.

J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005;26:224-40
Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review.
Tasker F. School of Psychology, Birkbeck College University of London.

There is a variety of families headed by a lesbian or gay male parent or same-sex couple. Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families. Some special considerations apply to the context of lesbian and gay parenting: variation in family forms, children's awareness of lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexism, and homophobia. These issues have important implications for managing clinical work with children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers.

On 24/08/2010 prb wrote:>A quick search ("same sex parents and children and review") of PubMed

Bah humbug - what has science ever given us that the Lord Almighty didn't want us to have in the first place?!? Next you'll be trying to tell us that the Earth isn't the centre of the Universe, or humans are descended from monkeys, or Jesus looked Jewish or somesuch other nonsense!

I think that today, everyone has their own personal understanding of what 'marriage' means
- for lawyers, it's about a set of duties and obligations, that, thankfully, have been shrinking over time, gradually
replaced by 'de-facto' relationships
- for some, it's a commitment that must be between a man & woman
- for religious people, it has something to do with God
- for Wendy and lots of people like her, it's pretty meaningless, but whatever it is, it comes with historical baggage
- I don't know Wendy's mum, but if she's like mine (same vintage), it's about 'doing things "properly", the way
they've always been done'
- for some it's two adults, declaring their love in front of their friends and making a public commitment

I'm in the latter camp. I'm also very much in favour of getting presents, dressing up weirdly and having a big party.

There's also a big difference in how important people think marriage is
- just an excuse for a party
- the above, plus a big deal for immediate family and close friends
- the above, plus a big deal for (very) extended family and friends
- the above, plus a big deal for God
- the above, plus a big deal for 'principle' and the human race

I'm in the second camp.

I think, the problem today is that marriage has gone from a pretty well defined concept (both the 'what', and the 'how important') to something that's pretty murky. Western society is in a flux period right now, and we'll probably go on shouting at each other for another 20 years, until the importance of marriage has all but died out here.

Wendy, it seems you have a certain view of marriage which is quite negative and oppressive, and certainly not the same view of marriage that I have, which is one of mutual love, respect and a willingness to work together in partnership, in good times or in tough times. Whether or not you like or dislike the history, the definition of marriage is a commitment between man and woman. It is what it is and I don't personally believe it needs to be changed. It's like saying you don't like the definition of 'birthday', 'anniversary', 'funeral' or some other long-standing celebration or tradition. It shouldn't be subject to change purely because it doesn't suit a certain group in society.

As you alluded to, with so many marriages breaking up these days, it can no longer be held in the same high regard that it once used to and therefore not a valid indication of commitment between two people. At the end of the day it's a label that society has placed on us and the most important thing is the actual commitment between two people in a relationship, whether gay or straight, and that their legal rights within that relationship are consistent across society. It shouldn't matter what other people think as long as each partner is committed to the other, the tiltle of marriage won't make any difference at all. I know people who are married and you'd think they were single, and know others who aren't even living together and appear more 'married' than the first couple! If the legal rights for gay couples were the same across the board as for heterosexual couples, I don't think this would be as big an issue as what it actually is in today's society. That's just my opinion and would be interested to see what others think about it.

On 24/08/2010 actionmax wrote:>... certainly not the same view of marriage that I have,>which is one of mutual love, respect and a willingness to work together>in partnership, in good times or in tough times. Whether or not you like>or dislike the history, the definition of marriage is a commitment between>man and woman. It is what it is and I don't personally believe it needs>to be changed.

So are you arguing that a relationship based on "mutual love, respect and a willingness to work together in partnership, in good times or in tough times" is not possible between two people of the same gender? Or simply that when that type of relationship exists between two people of the same gender, it should not be labeled "marriage", despite being otherwise indistinguishable from a heterosexual marriage?

>It's like saying you don't like the definition of 'birthday',>'anniversary', 'funeral' or some other long-standing celebration or tradition.>It shouldn't be subject to change purely because it doesn't suit a certain>group in society.

So you have no problem with preserving the historical definitions for these terms, despite those definitions excluding certain members of society for no good reason? Or do you have good reasons for believing they should be excluded that haven't been stated yet (beyond historical definition, which imvho is a weak argument at best)?

>At the end of>the day it's a label that society has placed on us and the most important>thing is the actual commitment between two people in a relationship, whether>gay or straight, and that their legal rights within that relationship are>consistent across society. It shouldn't matter what other people think>as long as each partner is committed to the other, the tiltle of marriage>won't make any difference at all.

It's irrelevant whether you or I think it should or shouldn't matter - what matters is that it absolutely does matter to some gay and lesbian couples that they are excluded from the institution of marriage.

On 24/08/2010 actionmax wrote:>Whether or not you like>or dislike the history, the definition of marriage is a commitment between>man and woman.
Really? What definition is that? What country? What state? Are you talking about the legal definition in Australia? The one that's lately been subject to such controversy??

It is what it is and I don't personally believe it needs>to be changed.
Ok, but why not, if it discriminates against 1 in 10 people?

> It's like saying you don't like the definition of 'birthday',>'anniversary', 'funeral' or some other long-standing celebration or tradition.
No, it's not the same!! Those celebrations don't discriminate - homosexuals are allowed to have birthdays!!

>It shouldn't be subject to change purely because it doesn't suit a certain>group in society.
Why not? Isn't that one of the main reasons why we change - because we realise we were wrong, and become tolerant of groups in society? Or, for example, should Aborigines never have been given the right to vote? Can't you see that there were people in the 1960's that felt as strongly about that issue as you do about gay marriage?

>> It shouldn't matter what other people think>as long as each partner is committed to the other, the tiltle of marriage>won't make any difference at all.
Agreed. So let gay people be married.

The current Australian legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman is actually a new thing. It was put in place by the Howard government in the last 10 years. Previously it did not state what sex the two people had to be.